RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 17, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 17, 2011 EDIT - in view of another layout existing with the name "Tawford", I have modified this to "Tawford Cross" EDIT AGAIN - please go to page 4 to see latest ideas (September 2013....)My previous layout "Tresarrick" really got nowhere - I made some kind of error with wiring & it wasn't really workable without some kind of extension - which never got built. And then I went and got distracted by the North Devon line, with this thread about 1980s freight traffic which many people contributed to - again, thanks to all who did. So, just to show that I am at least planning something to make use of all that info, here's a first go at a plan.It's basically 2 boards of 4ft x 20in (to fit onto the worktops in our conservatory/utility room) with a narrower board leading to a 4ft fiddle yard on the left. Having slaved over some plywood boards last time, I intend to make these from Styrofoam with thin ply or MDF edging. On the right is a small offstage area to complete the run-round and allow me to "play" - the intention would be to have another full fiddle yard here as well if/when relocated to a larger area (loft?).It's got elements of Lapford - the right hand exit would be a characteristic North Devon 3 arch bridge, with the loop track going to a wider track spacing to go through the arch (this line was originally broad gauge with wider spacing). The goods yard would handle fertilizer & timber traffic like Lapford. Strictly the right hand exit should then be to Exeter & the left to Barnstaple.I'm not sure that the Lapford style station building would fit, so probably a small timber building. I want to incorporate an LSWR signal box with a level crossing too, plus hopefully a river bridge on the narrower board before the fiddle yard.And a name? I like the sound of "Tawford" - a lot of settlements in the area end in -ford and the location is supposedly in the Taw valley area.Any thoughts or comments welcome. I'm not sure how quickly this will progress - I need to sell off some redundant china clay stock & explain to Sazzle why I'm pulling Tresarrick apart first.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Good to see some more plans Rich!! Hope the next uploads will be some photos of woodwork or even tracklaying? Seriously it looks like a good plan with plenty of interest in it. Its a bog decision to scrap a half started layout but if it's going nowhere it's often the best for the mojo. I reckon you could get a pretty good flavour of North Devon in there, and of course plenty of variety to the trains. Just to throw something else into the mix. If you are selling some of your china clay stuff have you considered selling it all and moving to N gauge? Could fit a lot of North Devon in! Just an idea, wouldn't want to slow things down........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted August 19, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 I worry that your runround facility is in the portion of layout in the future, not on Day 1. You will get seriously bored with having no way of running round your train. Either every train will be propelled out of the fiddle yard, or you won't be able to leave anything in any siding, because the loco will be ahead of it. Actually, having a crossover located so that you can only run round a few wagons adds to the "shunting puzzle" complexity, so try adding one in the top pair of lines, perhaps with only a loco-length beyond the crossover. You need a visible run-round - period. Just try drawing it out and see what it might do for the operational possibilities. Most of us make models to run them, not just to look pretty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold slow8dirty Posted August 19, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 Aha! So there are creative rumblings out there West of the Exe. Nice to see a plan finally Rich, will be very interesting to watch this one evolve. I can understand Ians concerns re the right hand end, but if you were to do that it wouldn't be Lapfordlike then. Your thoughts on how your doing the RH end would be interesting. Im assuming your going to run it as a terminus for the time being, if so loco cassettes behind the bridge, or stubby fingers? I like the look of the trackplan, I say apart from details keep it the same, but push for some room to add that RH fiddle yard. How about doing the station building in low(ish) relief? A new topic to watch(once I find the new style button ), especially as my own Barny project is either moribund or about to move to the somerset levels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 19, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 Tom, Ian & Matt - thanks for the replies, just to clarify: On the right is a small offstage area to complete the run-round and allow me to "play" - the intention would be to have another full fiddle yard here as well if/when relocated to a larger area (loft?). There's a blank area to the right of the bridge which allows a 1ft "Stub" to plug onto the end of the 8ft scenic section within the length available (9ft overall). I can then use a locolift (or maybe build a traverser) to allow a run round. I'm obviously intending to have another full fiddle yard there in the fullness of time (or maybe a full roundy-roundy) but until then I can definitely run trains as Matt describes! Tom - yes N gauge would be an option but my eyesight & fingers aren't really up to the task I fear.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 34008Padstow Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Hi Rich. If your using Lapford for as inspiration then this link might be of use http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~owend/I/R/stnpages/lapford.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 19, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 Thanks for that link, not one I'd found before. It seems like some of the stone work of the bridge has been replaced since the early 80s - this image shows original stonework, not sure of date but before 1980 ('cos that's when the 25s left...) and this image shows some replaced stone work, the pictures on "Padstow's" links show more extensive replacement. I can't tell if it's bricks or replacement red stones being used? I don't think I'll be trying to replicate that effect too closely... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 With all these models of bits of the North Devon line on the go, perhaps they ought to be done on a modular basis so they could be joined up for a one-off exhibition. Thus far, we seem to have got one- possibly two- Barnstaple Junctions, a looks-quite-a-lot-like-Lapford, and a smaller station. Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted August 19, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 With all these models of bits of the North Devon line on the go, perhaps they ought to be done on a modular basis so they could be joined up for a one-off exhibition. Thus far, we seem to have got one- possibly two- Barnstaple Junctions, a looks-quite-a-lot-like-Lapford, and a smaller station. Brian Not to forget Darren01's ace model of Torrington! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 19, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 19, 2011 Yes, I'd noticed a few North Devon models starting to surface, although it looks like Matt (slow8dirty) is thinking of relocating to the line his user names suggests... I only hope I can get half as good as Darren's work! He's now also doing Bideford / East-the-water too. Jamest's model of Barnstaple already incorporates a version of Lapford - so I can't really join onto that one without making the OO passengers really confused! I did coin the acronym R.A.N.D.O.M. a while back - "Rmweb Association of North DevOn Modellers" Perhaps we need a special interest group set up... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 20, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 20, 2011 Well done RR. Notwithstanding all the helpful comments above, its always nice to build in some flexibility so that you can add/subtract at a later date, however its also good to get cracking on something, as sometimes, we change things whilst work is in progress. That said, I would get cracking on it and if you get the basics up and running...the loco lift might just be enough to satisfy the amount of 'play time' you actually get in between work/family duties. No time like the present I say....besides....there's been a lot of research and preparation for it in your other thread Get in...watching with great interest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 20, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 20, 2011 Thanks Pete - as you've always been enthusiastic about my plans (even since "defecting" over the Tamar!) I kind of feel like I owe it to you and several others to actually produce something here and not just sit on it or keep waffling here I've just got to pluck up the courage to explain my change of heart to sazzle; she'll probably think I'm completely mad... PS I just love these emoticons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 21, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2011 Thanks Pete - as you've always been enthusiastic about my plans (even since "defecting" over the Tamar!) I kind of feel like I owe it to you and several others to actually produce something here and not just sit on it or keep waffling here I've just got to pluck up the courage to explain my change of heart to sazzle; she'll probably think I'm completely mad... PS I just love these emoticons Nowt wrong with extended research...it's an evolving process, as you will probably still be finding new things during your build....I know I am... One thought though....did you consider making this a straight run layout so it could be on the exhibition circuit at a later date? I was just wondering if you made a slight adjustment to the left end alignment, you could have a layout that includes a removable 'curved infill piece' so that you could run the layout at home in 90 degree format, and in the future, on the exhibition circuit by reuse of your fiddleyard orientated in line with the layout? Just a thought... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 21, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2011 Nowt wrong with extended research...it's an evolving process, as you will probably still be finding new things during your build....I know I am... One thought though....did you consider making this a straight run layout so it could be on the exhibition circuit at a later date? I was just wondering if you made a slight adjustment to the left end alignment, you could have a layout that includes a removable 'curved infill piece' so that you could run the layout at home in 90 degree format, and in the future, on the exhibition circuit by reuse of your fiddleyard orientated in line with the layout? Just a thought... Ummmmmm, now you've thrown a spanner in the works! I've ticked the "like this" button as it's an interesting idea, but really not sure if it's do-able as I've incorporated a curved point in order to increase the platform & loop lengths. I know what you mean though, L-shaped layouts are a problem at exhibitions. It may be possible with tighter curves on the "stay at home" bit I suppose. I'll have another play on XtrakCAD (I like this smiley the best - definitely me!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 21, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2011 So, here's a reworked version. I've stolen an extra 6in by putting the right hand end on the windowsill (!) and tightened the radius of the curve to 20in (about the same as Setrack 3rd radius). The board construction would be a little more involved as I'd need to take account of the windowsill on the right. It looks ok though - a bit more like Lapford as the platform line is now straight - and there would be room either end of the main section for in-line fiddle yards or additional modules to expand. I'm not too worried about the tight curve as I'd be looking from the inside so the buffers would close up instead of opening! I think I've even got room for a proper full-size station building. Any other ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 22, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 22, 2011 Seeing as I am wholly to blame for this suggestion, I guess I had better have first dibs at the rework... I like it, and whilst it perhaps loses some of the flowing gentle curve, I personally would be strongly tempted to model Lapford as it is / was. I know Ken Gibbons did a great job of 'Lapford Road' (I have the Toddler Sept 1999 article if you need to make reference) but I recall even he added the 'Road' to allow a little modellers licence. The idea of one day replacing the loco lift with a second fiddle lends itself to Lapford being primarily a through station, but I think the present arrangement certainly allows you to get something underway and have some fun at home....and with one eye on the future for the exhibition circuit. My only other suggestion would be that if you wish to go the exhibition circuit route, then build that in mind now as backscenes, operator position etc would need to work in both home/exhibition configuration....if that makes sense. Go for it RR EDIT...Just one more thing....as an alternative to KG's Lapford, the public viewing side could be as depicted above, i.e. looking towards the station and platform and across the goods yard...would be rather interesting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 22, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 22, 2011 Pete, thanks once more. I'd automatically assumed the viewing side would be from the goods yard side over towards the platform with the backscene beyond the station building (ie along the top edge of the plan) - this is how it would be in the room I have in mind. The skew bridge also lends itself to this direction of view with a curve in the backscene where the road meets the top edge. I'm not sure how well it would work viewing as if standing at the top of the plan, it would need another backscene along the lower edge if so. The advantages would be that the operators could stay on the "lower" side but behind a backscene, also it stops people trying to peer through the road bridge! I've just had another thought - if I started the removable section immediately to the left of the loop exit point and pushed the signal box to the right slightly, I could ease the curve out to a larger radius. There's no reason why the main boards have to be 4ft long, I could easily make them smaller and the removable section larger. I feel another play with XtrackCAD this evening will be on the cards..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 I have to say I like the revised plan. It somehow looks 'roomier' despite the tighter curve if that makes sense. I don't think radius 3 curves will be too tight, especially if you disguise them a little with scenary/buildings Get some track down and have a play!! It's amazing how much more inspiration you get when you start running things! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 22, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 22, 2011 Get some track down and have a play!! It's amazing how much more inspiration you get when you start running things! Agreed.... PM on its way...as we used to say RR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 22, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 22, 2011 3rd iteration: Now the curve is 32in radius (which is nice...) but the boards are a bit irregular in length. In order to make the joint immediately before the 1st point, the board is 2ft 6in long so it can't be an easy 2ft wide board & I've ended up with an extra board joint (or a more difficult 2ft 6in x 3ft 8in board). I think it's probably worth the effort though! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold slow8dirty Posted August 22, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 22, 2011 Like the 3rd version a lot, that sharp radius irked me. like the bridge and how you've opened out the goods yard a little, how do the siding lengths compare to the 1st version? (I guess Polybulks are the largest item to be parked there?) And my tuppence hap'ny worth, make the corner board as one unit, probably at least half of it scenic if possible. looking good so far Cheers, Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 23, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 23, 2011 Thanks Matt. The sidings are a little shorter now due to moving the 1st point off the curve, the longer one is about 3ft. Should still be able to get a few UKF vans or couple of polybulks in there plus some OTAs in the other siding. I'd certainly want some scenery on the corner board, thinking again I could have 3 main boards along the top as 2'6" + 4' + 2'6" plus an angled board about 2' x 2' overall tapering from 2' to 1' wide (although that would need a rail joint at on oblique angle). The reason for the hesitation on the corner board is that I have stockpiled some 2' x 4' styrofoam boards which I intend to use, but that corner board would be 2'6" wide if done as a single unit.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 23, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 23, 2011 Lookin' good RR. Assume in 'exhibition mode' you would have a short straight scenic filler board to straighten the line out between the toe of the point and the fiddle yard?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 34008Padstow Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Hi Rich. I also think the third plan is much better as it doesnt look to cramped up. Hope you dont mind me posting another link, im doing some research for my own new layout and found this rather intresting pic. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/488439 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 23, 2011 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 23, 2011 Pete - yes, I'd certainly do at least one extra board to straighten the line, could easily be scope for extra scenic section(s) to get a good length. Similarly ther would need to be a curved section to replace the right hand "plug in" section to attach another fiddle yard ("Exeter"). Padstow - thanks for the comment & further link. I'd love to have a more modern set of stock as I do like Sprinters etc! I think a bit of "what-if-ery" would be needed to retain some freight - maybe Barnstaple could keep or regain cement traffic like Moorswater, plus some MoD traffic or a scrap yard? Mustn't get too distracted though as I'm rather strapped for cash here - will be concentrating on 1980s for now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.